Well, retard, you're wrong. "Illiterate" means "unable to read", and "not literate" means that a person has not read enough of the right literature. Often there is a bit more context involved with the latter, such as, "Frank is not literate in [something]", but it can also be used without extra context, and is then usually more of a judgement of a person's level of well-read-ness.
> "Illiterate" means "unable to read", and "not literate" means that a person has not read enough of the right literature
Fascinating distinction. I don't see any reason for that to be the case semantically (and the definition of literate makes that clear), but i can appreciate that it is nonetheless colloquially true.
"Not literate" still **literally** means "not able to read", even if colloquially/idiomatically it has another connotation.
"Ill", the prefix, is "bad/sick". This includes all magnitudes, from a little to all the way bad.
The question i have is, why don't you think they are interchangeable?
Spoken like a true intellectual.
> "Illiterate" means "unable to read", and "not literate" means that a person has not read enough of the right literature
Fascinating distinction. I don't see any reason for that to be the case semantically (and the definition of literate makes that clear), but i can appreciate that it is nonetheless colloquially true.
"Not literate" still **literally** means "not able to read", even if colloquially/idiomatically it has another connotation.